Trump and NFL boycott

[Ziggurat]

Disingenuous. Does the government proscribe what the artist can create?

The government funds artists that create what the funding agencies like, and deny funds to artists that create what the funding agencies don't like. That's the same as what's being talked about here, they're just not as vocal about what it is they like and don't like.

 

[LSSBB]

The government funds artists that create what the funding agencies like, and deny funds to artists that create what the funding agencies don't like. That's the same as what's being talked about here, they're just not as vocal about what it is they like and don't like.

Evidence, please.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The IRS actions and policies were discriminatory and illegal. Those "examinations" don't change that.

Except for the part where there is no evidence that the IRS actions and policies were discriminatory and illegal.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Except for the part where there is no evidence that the IRS actions and policies were discriminatory and illegal.

There is evidence. It may not be a preponderance. There is evidence I killed Kennedy. The fact I wasn't born is bigger, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Evidence, please.

It's probably with the evidence that the IRS policies are discriminatory and illegal. Fact is, federal grants for the arts are not based on what the art is. There has been controversy because the funds did go to some art that conservatives don't like. This is probably why Republicans are trying to shut down the NEA.

 

[thaiboxerken]

There is evidence. It may not be a preponderance. There is evidence I killed Kennedy. The fact I wasn't born is bigger, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence.

I don't care to add qualifiers to "evidence" the same way you don't care to add qualifiers to your statements as opinion. I think everyone in the forum understands that the context of the word evidence in the forum means relevant, valid, reasonable evidence.

Please stop your silly, semantically centered arguments.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I don't care to add qualifiers to "evidence" the same way you don't care to add qualifiers to your statements as opinion. I think everyone in the forum understands that the context of the word evidence in the forum means relevant, valid, reasonable evidence.

Please stop your silly, semantically centered arguments.

I think your thought that everyone understands is wrong. I legitimately did not understand that is what you meant.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think your thought that everyone understands is wrong. I legitimately did not understand that is what you meant.

I think that you purposefully do not understand what people mean.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The tax code is used to encourage and discourage expression all the time.

The government offers artistic grants all the time. Is it a constitutional violation every time the government withdraws a grant, or refuses to subsidize some expression it is not interested in?

Is it okay for the government to enact artistic subsidies as long as no government official actually discusses it? Because that seems... Unworkable.

If the subsidies and grants are given or refused based on if the Government approves of the politics of the Art, then yes that is a violation, as is revoking funding for a project because the artist's political message is deemed to not be in accordance with the Government's policies (and is also quite likely illegal.)

This is exactly what the 1st is about. Funding should be determined by the quality of the work and the artist, not on the message. When you have a Government that uses Taxes and other methods to penalise any citizen that opposes it, while rewarding only those that support it, then you are on the fast track to creating a Tyranny.

 

[theprestige]

If the subsidies and grants are given or refused based on if the Government approves of the politics of the Art, then yes that is a violation, as is revoking funding for a project because the artist's political message is deemed to not be in accordance with the Government's policies (and is also quite likely illegal.)

This is exactly what the 1st is about. Funding should be determined by the quality of the work and the artist, not on the message. When you have a Government that uses Taxes and other methods to penalise any citizen that opposes it, while rewarding only those that support it, then you are on the fast track to creating a Tyranny.

I'm sorry. Are you citing Supreme Court decisions?

 

[Meadmaker]

Fact is, federal grants for the arts are not based on what the art is.

That would explain some of the funding.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I'm sorry. Are you citing Supreme Court decisions?

The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that the government is not required to subsidize artistic expression with public funds. But the Court has also found that once it does decide to provide funds for arts programs, the government cannot withdraw that funding, thus censoring certain works, because it disagrees with the viewpoint expressed in the work. In other words, while the government has great flexibility in determining which artists and programs to fund, it must do so in a manner consistent with the First Amendment and cannot do so in a vague or viewpoint-based way. As stated by the National Coalition Against Censorship, public funding for the arts does not allow the government to play the role of censor.¹

From Harvard Law....

How the government should respond to controversial art depends on whether the government is acting as consumer, patron, or censor. In the US, the First Amendment tightly limits governmental censorship. "Degenerate Art" cannot be censored directly. US cases have most typically involved obscenity or the flag. After Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), and Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153 (1974), creative art work seems to be absolutely protected from obscenity laws unless it involves the depiction of hard-core sexual conduct for its own sake or for commercial gain.

After Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), unpatriotic or subversive speech (or art) cannot be suppressed unless aimed at and likely to incite "imminently lawless conduct." Key provisions of the 1968 Flag Desecration Act, 18 U.S.C. §700, were found unconstitutional in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990) found its amended version also unconstitutional because it "suppresses expression out of concern for its likely communicative impact." Of course, that impact is not entirely fanciful; a 1996 Phoenix Art Museum exhibition "Old Glory: The American Flag in Contemporary Art" produced the now-to-be-expected protests.

And the debate continues. Harvard faculty have weighed in on both sides of the argument. Charles Fried and Kathleen Sullivan co-authored an ACLU amicus brief against an amendment and Richard Parker testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in favor of amending the Constitution to permit protection of the flag (4/20/99). A proposed amendment to the Constitution to prohibit burning or other desecration of the flag failed Wednesday, March 29, 2000, by a 63 to 37 vote, four votes short of the required two-thirds majority, much to the delight of People for the American Way and to the chagrin the Citizens Flag Alliance. But in July 2001, the House of Representatives voted 298 to 125 in support of a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to make it a crime to desecrate an American flag. Although the Senate never passed a comparable bill, a proposed amendment has been introduced in both houses of the 108th Congress. And fifty states have proposed that Congress endorse a flag amendment and send it to the states for ratification.

Other uses of the government's licensing and regulatory powers have been attempted to regulate "art speech," but the courts have generally been unsympathetic. See Marci A. Hamilton, Art Speech, 49 Vand. L. Rev. 73 (1996) HeinOnline Lexis Westlaw²

The level of censorship is based on the following....

The Arts and Humanities Act, as amended in 1990, (20 U.S.C. § 954 (d)(1)), requires the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to ensure that "artistic excellence and artistic merit are the criteria by which [grant] applications are judged, taking into consideration general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public"³

not on the political offensiveness or unpatriotic nature of the work. Further as noted above, while the grant is not automatic, once given, it cannot be removed because of the political nature of the work. The Government only has the right to direct a work if they have commissioned it directly, not for work done with Government Grants.

 

[Oystein]

The government funds artists that create what the funding agencies like, and deny funds to artists that create what the funding agencies don't like. That's the same as what's being talked about here, they're just not as vocal about what it is they like and don't like.

Explain how the government "funds" the kneeling protests!

Are the protests the content of what's being funded?

I think I am seeing serious mental gymnastics here.

 

[jimbob]

Why shouldn't the players treat the flag any way they want? It's their flag after all.

Yes, as a Brit, this whole debate and the flag code seems very alien.

 

[The Don]

I find this sentence interesting from a BBC story on the subject:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/american-football/41575318

The NFL will discuss the issue of players kneeling during the United States national anthem when it meets in New York next week.

It's only an "issue" because the GOP has made suppression of free speech for black people official party policy again

 

[Ziggurat]

Except for the part where there is no evidence that the IRS actions and policies were discriminatory and illegal.

Except for the part where the courts have found exactly that.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Except for the part where the courts have found exactly that.

A court isn't "the courts" and the 6th circuit is one that often has it's decisions overturned. You think it's discriminatory, but the fact that the IRS went after liberal groups as well as conservative groups proves that it was not "targeting" conservatives.

 

[Spindrift]

Trump wasn't turned down. He could have bought the Dallas Cowboys for about $50 million (current market value $4 billion) but he said he "couldn't do anything" with the Cowboys. Instead he bought a USFL team (the spring league) for about $10 million and convinced the other owners (everybody seems to fall for Trump's blather once) to switch to a Fall schedule. And sue the NFL on anti-trust grounds.

The USFL only lasted two more seasons, the NFL destroyed them in the ratings, though they did 'win' the lawsuit (they were awarded $3.00 in damages, yes that's right, three dollars)

Big winner? Dallas Cowboy fans.

Another Trump lie. The Cowboys sold for $85 Million. Trump wasn't in the ballpark and probably couldn't have come up with the $50 million he said he was going to pay anyway. Plus rumor has it the other owners were not going to approve of any purchase involving him. That has stuck in Trump's craw.

For revenge, he tried the USFL and that failed miserably. Now 30+ years later he's still out for revenge.

 

[johnny karate]

How about something other than the false dichotomy of incipient dictatorship or nothing mattering?

I think Obama was a terrible president, and did some serious damage to the country. I do not think he was Hitler, or even Woodrow Wilson for that matter. See how it works? You don't have to like Trump, you don't have to be indifferent to him, to not think we're on the brink of fascism. And incompetence can have negative consequences other than turning our country into a dictatorship.

BobTheCoward clearly stated that what Trump does doesn't matter because he's Trump.

You clearly agreed with him.

 

[Galaxie]

As I expected, that spineless-******* Roger Goodell has changed course:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/sports/football/nfl-goodell-anthem-kneeling.html